Author
Topic: Interesting sidenote on the C-17 (Read 40339 times)

Don't know if anybody caught the question period today, but some interesting points came up regarding the acquisition of C-17s... First off the balance of the maintenance to be contracted out to Boeing-Lockheed, secondly the C-17s would spend a large amount of time on US soil (mike duffy summ'd it up as 'based in' the US due to lack of hangars, not sure if thats accurate) and finally that the US could veto any destination that the C-17s fly to. Any thoughts/comments from the pros regarding the outsourcing? The veto would seem to be an indirect way of having more 'input' in canada's foreign policy...Is such a veto unprecedented?

If the C-17 s are 'off the rack' they will have sensitive technology that needs US permission to be disclosed. Landing/refueling in a country that might 'detain' - then inspect - an aircraft over 'contractual difficulties regarding payment for fuel' is not an option. Paticipating countries safeguard each other's technologies - including secure storage - or risk losing the assets. Recall that the nukes Canada 'bought and payed for' for the BOMARC, Voodoo and Starfighter all had USAF Ordnance detachments posted with them. That was a US DOE, not DOD decision.

Logged

"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.

"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

well............ if the Aussies and the Brits can own and keep at home their C17s, it leads me to wonder WTF is this all about. If Canada needs em to deploy troops or equipment around the world, then it should not be up to the US to decide if we are to be allowed the priviledge of using the C17s......... IMHO

We should be very careful. This sounds like media-inspired BS to me. "Based in the US"? A "veto"? Seriously...

This would be completely without precident and I am certain that the British would not have agreed to such weird restrictions.

Logged

A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

agreed Teddy.can't see any ofthe C17 operators settling for that kind of obligation.Obviously some time will be spend " Boeing" for maintenance but the aircraft shouldn't live in the US most of the time.

"There's no guarantee that the maintenance is going to be done in Canada by Canadian companies for the C-17s. There is no guarantee that they're going to be based in Canada. We have no hangars to hold them in Canada," Dosanjh told a press conference on Parliament Hill.

What utter shyte.

"No guarantee that they're going to be based in Canada"? No hangers? Dosanjh knows, does he not, that these aircraft are parked outside? Scaremongering at its political worst...

Logged

A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

My understanding of the whole deal was to be that if we leased the planes then we would provide air crews to man them while the US provided crews to maintain them. They would be under control of the US Airlift Command for the times that we did not need them ourselves with our pilots flying them.

Now that the option of buying them is up and for most I would assume that all servicing functions would be handled by ourselves. While most of the second and third line maintenance would be carried out by Boeing. Well to be honest with you I perfer it that way. I mean they know them better then we do and they have all the special tools.

As for hanger space and size. Well we could build them.

I see the main argument coming from back east and from the regions that have always politically benefited from ill decisions made on behalf of the DND.

Who knows maybe a company out west will tender into the main contracts for these planes.

I hope harper charges ahead and gives us the stuff we need. Here and now, not some canadianized, public works approved, made in seven parts of canada BS kit that pleases everybody but the soldier/airman or sailor who has to use it.

"This would be completely without precident and I am certain that the British would not have agreed to such weird restrictions."

- Not necessarily. We don't know what restrictions, agreements or arrangements are made regarding the end use of certain technologies between the USA and the UK, and what we do know about USA/Cda agreements cannot be discussed here.

- We aren't talking used Honda Civics. What goes in one customers aircraft is not necessarily what goes in another's.

- In any case, the most LOGICAL agreement would be a fleet based one. Thirty Hercs, 138 Hornets or 18 Auroras might be a fleet, are four leased C-17s? Perhaps they should be serviced with the rest in the USA.

Logged

"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.

"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Certainly there are software restrictions on the aircraft instrumentation, sensor, and control avionics which would restrict the use of the aircraft in prohibited areas by non US DoD entities. I would not be surprised if maintenance is performed at least initially by civilian contractors within Canada and by US/UK maintainers outside of Canada

Certainly there are software restrictions on the aircraft instrumentation, sensor, and control avionics which would restrict the use of the aircraft in prohibited areas by non US DoD entities. I would not be surprised if maintenance is performed at least initially by civilian contractors within Canada and by US/UK maintainers outside of Canada

But this is a transport aircraft, hardly a stealthy fighter-bomber or super-secret recce aircraft. I worked extensively with C-17s a couple of years ago and there's no voodoo to them. We routinely deploy sophisticated systems to theatres without US approval and without US involvement. Why would we accept that this transport aircraft be any different, particularly as we're buying is specifically to avoid relying on other nations for strategic mobility? It makes no sense.

If the purchase goes through, I would be shocked if there were any DOD restrictions on them (especially considering where the USAF has flown its C-17s). I could see contracting the maintenance to a civilian company - much as we do with the Polaris right now, but any suggestion of US basing or US control over where we would send our aircraft smacks of a conspiracy theory of the first order.

Logged

A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

Just a point for the Opposition Defence Critic....Several years ago the Liberal PM gave the veto on Canadian deployments to the US and Ukraine when he announced there was no need to own strategic transport because we could always rent or borrow it when required.

"There's no guarantee that the maintenance is going to be done in Canada by Canadian companies for the C-17s. There is no guarantee that they're going to be based in Canada. We have no hangars to hold them in Canada," Dosanjh told a press conference on Parliament Hill.

What utter shyte.

"No guarantee that they're going to be based in Canada"? No hangers? Dosanjh knows, does he not, that these aircraft are parked outside? Scaremongering at its political worst...

The defence critic for the loyal opposition has yet to make one coherent or relevent question regarding anything to do with the military. Why wreck a perfect record now?

"If the purchase goes through, I would be shocked if there were any DOD restrictions on them (especially considering where the USAF has flown its C-17s). "

- Other than the fact that if the USAF loses a C-17 anywhere they fly them, they have the immediate capability to swiftly ensure any sensitive items are recovered or destroyed. Canada does not have that capability.

Logged

"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda." - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.

"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

If the purchase goes through, I would be shocked if there were any DOD restrictions on them (especially considering where the USAF has flown its C-17s). I could see contracting the maintenance to a civilian company - much as we do with the Polaris right now, but any suggestion of US basing or US control over where we would send our aircraft smacks of a conspiracy theory of the first order.

I think it is a mis-characterization anymore to think in terms of buying a "transport aircraft". Its more like an airframe fitted with thousands of subsystems, some of which are controlled technology. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

For about a decade, Canada has had varying degrees of success in obtaining defence related technology of higher order from the USA. GM diesel and the Canadian government had to eat untold buckets of crap to decently kit out some of the vehicles produced in 90's. The Chretien government was particularly lethargic in its approach, except for when it came time to make contract announcements.

The journal Defence News has multiple examples of difficulties Canada has had with the US regarding the transfer of technology to us. In fact I recall an article a while back that discussed just how far the US should not go in equipping foreign air forces with transport aircraft since strategic mobility is a strategic advantage which they pretty much dominate. That article was not directed at Canada, but it demonstrates that they are careful with what they provide to off-shore allies. Perhaps five years ago the UK had to pass special legislation to avoid being caught in US restrictions. As for the avionics software and any defensive suite of systems, I am 100 percent confident there will be restrictions if Canada does not obtain a waiver on some of the software components in the aircraft, particularly anything with a cryptographic kernel, which is not necessarily restricted to communications systems.

The Canadian military and the current government have a good relationship with the US, but there are limits to trust especially given our volatile political landscape. It is not the military or the current government the US does not trust- it is the contractor located in Canada or a contractor hired abroad to perform service off-shore with little ability to prevent its employees from copying technology and selling it.

The saving grace in the C-17 issue is that many of the avionics components are produced in Canada or the underlying technology is actually licensed to the manufacturer from Canadian companies!

You're exactly correct, but you're talking apples and oranges here. That the US places massive restrictions on FMS and technology transfer is undeniable. Witness the latest controversy involving UK participation in the JSF project as a very good example.

In this case, though, there's a big difference in refusal to provide equipment because of transfer concerns and the operational control of that equipment (particularly by an ABCA country) once an approved purchase has gone through. The latter is what I was addressing and is what I do not believe to be a credible scenario.

Yes, there are defensive systems and crypto on the C-17, but IMHO it is stretching things a bit to suggest that these are so secret (if they're present at all on Canadian aircraft) that the US would seek to impose restrictions on the aircraft's use. Again, as I have pointed out, I cannot think of a single example (TCBF's nucs aside) where we have granted operational control over deployment decision to a foreign country based on such "concerns".

I'll go back to my original point - these "issues" were raised by the Liberal defence critic in an effort to scaremonger and to divert support away from the proposed purchase and nothing more.

Logged

A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

And yet we're continuing to take up bandwidth debating an illogical concept (US veto on where a CF-owned aircraft can fly), put forward by a repeatedly confirmed ill-informed, scare-mongering, embarrassingly unconscionable political hack (Dosanjh)

ha the F18 is in or around $30-40,000 an hour. Well we all know that certain people in certain places are always willing to line their pockets at the expense of those who can use the equipment. The allure of some hefty cash bonus to some executive from some unknown company has seen it's place in most of our procurments. If one only looks at the add sponsership scandel among a few other unpublicized events. I am not implying that the goverment themselves are doing this, but individuals with in that have influence into the matters maybe. They act for themselves in the betterment of themselves, not of the Country to whom they serve. Buy planes now not later.

I'm going out on a limb here but I don't think we have a Hanger in Trenton (only Zoomy base I have ever spent time at) that will accommodate the tail structure of a C-17. So the issue is we have no Hangers that will fit a C-17 to do the maintenance if we do any.

« Last Edit: July 12, 2006, 11:42:52 by Navy_Blue »

Logged

Kirk: "do you always estimate your repair times by a factor of four?" Scotty: "Aye sir how do you think I keep my reputation as a miracle worker."

for such a small fleet makes sense to have the company who makes them do the maintance work on them. they would have the spare parts and the trained techs to do the work. cost saving maybe. not like the fleet will be absed over seas all the time and need serious work over seas. The RAF is having the maker do the general work on the fleet they ordering so why not canada?

Considering that there is plenty of time between penning the contract and taking delivery of the aircraft, we've got plenty of time to build some new facilities.

When I worked in the NWT you had hangars that simply would have a hole cut out of the door / wall to allow most of (but not all) the aircraft to fit indoors... the rest would be looked after - outdoors.